What is your opinion on "abortion" ??

DeletedUser

It's mostly us guys doing the talking on this even though it's actually none of our damn business.
The idea that the father gets a say puts me in mind of those religions where a woman can't get divorced without her husband's consent. When will people get off trying to control other people's lives and start trying to sort out their own?
Some carnivores, like bears, if they cannot feed their young or they have a sickly cub, will eat them. Is this right or wrong? I guess you have to just accept that the mother bear goes by her instinct and does what feels right to her. Same with a woman - give her the facts, support if you've got it, and then respect her decision.
I'm a vegetarian - I don't see a moral difference between killing an animal and a person. But people eat meat all around me and I don't think "murderers". They are living their life and I am living mine - I'm not some judge of the human race.
There's all sorts of nastiness that hides behind piety and morality, but the way I see it - if you can't help the woman then can it and at least get out of her way.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser22575

Al Cummins... not everyone in this forum believe of the existence of GOD but i think its not a bad idea to say something about it.

the fact that you are not carrying a baby in your belly is one reason you dun understand why we insist on agreeing with abortion. as i have said, it will affect on the mother's health if she try to have an abortion whether it is successful or not. another thing is not only physical but also emotional, i may not have an experience on it but hearing a lot from what's going on around me is enough fact that it hits so much emotionally.

another thing, its true that it depends on a certain person on how they would feel about it and with live the consequences BUT how about thinking what shouldnt be done first so they wont regret it?

crying over a spilled milk isnt a good idea.. but abortion on the other hand isnt something you cant rethink right? there are lots of organization/institution who are willing to help women undergoing a doubt in carrying a baby, its one call that may change their way of thinking. . .

Actually it appears there is less mental health risk with having an abortion than having a baby.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110126...lYwN5bl90b3Bfc3RvcmllcwRzbGsDc3R1ZHlub2hpZ2hl
 

DeletedUser5046

Actually it appears there is less mental health risk with having an abortion than having a baby.

I see. It is said so. "A woman should know that her risk of having a psychiatric episode is not increased" after an abortion, said Trine Munk-Olsen of Aarhus University, who led the study.

But for first timers maybe it is quite helpful. I still think it may lead to abuse.
 

DeletedUser

Actually it appears there is less mental health risk with having an abortion than having a baby.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110126...lYwN5bl90b3Bfc3RvcmllcwRzbGsDc3R1ZHlub2hpZ2hl

The director of Planned Parenthood stated several years ago that "Planned Parenthood has nothing to do with abortion," as related in the book Standing Tall by Steve Farrar. That was clearly a lie.

There used to be many industry-commissioned studies claiming that smoking doesn't increase the risk of lung cancer. But those studies, though they seemed to outweigh their opposition at the time, were strongly influenced by the economic interests of those involved and have since been demonstrated to be wrong.

The point being that such studies are usually (always, I suppose) flawed, and the chance of misrepresentation or even false information is particularly high with issues about which people feel strongly. While the studies may be useful, they are not everything. The article TJ referenced even mentioned that there have been numerous studies seemingly demonstrating that the mental health risk is higher with an abortion than with a baby. The article attempted to discredit them, but the study in question was doubtless itself flawed too.

BTW, news articles often grossly misrepresent actual findings, so quoting or referencing the actual study would carry much more weight than simply linking to a news article. I have seen many cases where the media greatly misrepresented something, even if we leave politics out. Why, my hometown newspaper once quoted my own father as saying something he didn't say at all.
 

DeletedUser22575

The director of Planned Parenthood stated several years ago that "Planned Parenthood has nothing to do with abortion," as related in the book Standing Tall by Steve Farrar. That was clearly a lie.

There used to be many industry-commissioned studies claiming that smoking doesn't increase the risk of lung cancer. But those studies, though they seemed to outweigh their opposition at the time, were strongly influenced by the economic interests of those involved and have since been demonstrated to be wrong.

The point being that such studies are usually (always, I suppose) flawed, and the chance of misrepresentation or even false information is particularly high with issues about which people feel strongly. While the studies may be useful, they are not everything. The article TJ referenced even mentioned that there have been numerous studies seemingly demonstrating that the mental health risk is higher with an abortion than with a baby. The article attempted to discredit them, but the study in question was doubtless itself flawed too.

BTW, news articles often grossly misrepresent actual findings, so quoting or referencing the actual study would carry much more weight than simply linking to a news article. I have seen many cases where the media greatly misrepresented something, even if we leave politics out. Why, my hometown newspaper once quoted my own father as saying something he didn't say at all.

Is this study supposedly being "flawed" just your opinion?

If not where is your evidence it is flawed.
 

DeletedUser

I haven't read any of the studies about mental health risks with abortion versus child birth, but I do have an opinion about it (no big surprise, I'm sure). I do believe that females prone to postpartum depression/psychosis would have much less risk emotionally from an abortion than childbirth since most of their problems are hormonal. Women/girls who have abortions because they don't believe the fetus is a person yet, and who are in no position to care for a baby, are probably not likely to have any real major problems. Those who are likely to be at greater risk mentally/emotionally after an abortion are those who believe that what they're doing is murder but do it for one reason or another anyway.

In my experience (going by people I know who have had unwanted children and others who have had abortions), the mental health problems brought on by childbirth can be much more severe but last a fairly short time, while those brought on by abortion can be less severe but longer lasting - sometimes for life. On the other hand, I haven't seen any worse problems from abortion than from giving a child up for adoption, or sometimes from raising an unwanted child. I do agree that a potential mother should receive some form of therapy before deciding what to do just to be sure she has some support for her decision. Either way, the people around her could make her question whether she made the right decision unless she has seriously looked at all options before deciding.
 

DeletedUser9470

Please try and provide thoughtful responses explaining your view, not "just because rants".

Thanks.

TJ

1. Should abortion be illegal.

2. Dr George Tiller was shot and killed while attending church by anti abortionist radical Scott Roeder. Scott Roeder tried to argue the defense of justified murder because "preborn children's lives were in imminent danger". The judge refused to allow this argument and Scott Roeder was convicted of murder and sentenced to life in prison.

Should the argument of "preborn children's lives were in imminent danger" have been allowed?

What should happen to those who kill Doctors who perform abortions? Should they be treated any differently than anyone else who kills someone?


3. The United States Constitution guarantees "freedom of religion". Many constitutional scholars believe this means not only the right to choose your own religion, but to be free from others imposing their religious belief on you.

Should those who insist that "abortion is murder" based on religious belief be allowed to attempt to force that belief on others, or should that in itself be illegal?

1 i dont see why abortion should be illegal, imo bringing a child into this dog eat dog world is at the moment a mistake in itself. if you want a kid, go and help one who has already been born brought to the worldd by people who dont have a brain.
that aside, i do admit that going as far as a abortion is for me a bit idiotic,when u think of all the different contraceptive means we have nowadays.

2 i think that anyone who kills should in turn be killed. there is no valid reason to go and kill another man. that said i do think some people should be shot for the sake of humanity, religious people in particular...

3 all religions have demonstrated that the only way they grow is by "brainwashing" other people. imo these greedy, child molesting, wife beating, war hungry people should all be shot.
the only religion worthwhile, that actually contributes and helps humanity is Buddhism.

the real question unveiled by this debate is when is it considered we are born?
surely the answer to that question lies in the question itself. thus anything before birth is not yet a baby, in which case abortion shouldnt be considered as a murder.

these type of debates always remind me of a saying:
Mediocrity knows nothing higher than itself, but talent instantly recognizes genius. -Doyle, Sir Arthur Conan

Source : Mediocrity knows nothing higher than itself, but talent instantly recognizes genius. Sir Arthur Conan Doyle
 

DeletedUser

The director of Planned Parenthood stated several years ago that "Planned Parenthood has nothing to do with abortion," as related in the book Standing Tall by Steve Farrar. That was clearly a lie.
No, it's not clearly a lie. It's not clearly a lie because there is no "director" attributed to having made this comment. Of course Planned Parenthood participates in abortions. As to this alleged quote, either this alleged director has a name, Steve Farrar made it up, or you did.

The point being that such studies are usually (always, I suppose) flawed, and the chance of misrepresentation or even false information is particularly high with issues about which people feel strongly. While the studies may be useful, they are not everything. The article TJ referenced even mentioned that there have been numerous studies seemingly demonstrating that the mental health risk is higher with an abortion than with a baby. The article attempted to discredit them, but the study in question was doubtless itself flawed too.
Allegations mean nothing, provide substantiation. I read countless 'non-industry' reports on abortion and can attest to what this article indicates. I have, as well, read countless 'pro-life' reports that frankly did what you're doing now, attempting to disparage credible reports, but otherwise providing no contra-evidence.
 

DeletedUser

No, it's not clearly a lie. It's not clearly a lie because there is no "director" attributed to having made this comment. Of course Planned Parenthood participates in abortions. As to this alleged quote, either this alleged director has a name, Steve Farrar made it up, or you did.

I didn't give more details earlier because I didn't have the book in front of me at the time. But now that I'm home for the weekend, I do.

Steve Farrar didn't give the man's name out of respect for his privacy, but he provides many details on pages 33-37 of Standing Tall (published by Multnomah Books, part of Questar Publishers of Sisters, OR, copyright 1994). Before an audience of about 200 in Mr. Farrar's Texas community, the man said, "Planned Parenthood has nothing to do with abortion. I'm the director and I ought to know." If the man was not the director, he, not Mr. Farrar or me, deserves to be called on that claim. There is no evidence that this incident was made up, and if you contacted Mr. Farrar, I suppose that he could point you to other witnesses. :)

Allegations mean nothing, provide substantiation. I read countless 'non-industry' reports on abortion and can attest to what this article indicates. I have, as well, read countless 'pro-life' reports that frankly did what you're doing now, attempting to disparage credible reports, but otherwise providing no contra-evidence.

Is this study supposedly being "flawed" just your opinion?

If not where is your evidence it is flawed.

Regarding my criticism of the study, I was just pointing out that it's necessarily impossible for flawed humans to make a perfect study. I didn't say whether that particular study was more flawed than the others, or that the flaws were serious. I haven't read the study, so I don't know.

2 i think that anyone who kills should in turn be killed. there is no valid reason to go and kill another man. that said i do think some people should be shot for the sake of humanity, religious people in particular...

3 all religions have demonstrated that the only way they grow is by "brainwashing" other people. imo these greedy, child molesting, wife beating, war hungry people should all be shot.
the only religion worthwhile, that actually contributes and helps humanity is Buddhism

Pure Buddhism is actually atheistic, so it's debatable whether it falls under the definition of religion. But if it does, then so does secular humanism. And how many people have been killed by secular/atheistic humanists (individuals and governments) in the past century alone? Perhaps atheists should be exterminated. JK. I don't believe that the sword is proper for determining matters like that, though it's obviously proper for defending against violent religious or atheistic people.

And what do you mean by "brainwashing," which you put in quotation marks?

that said i do think some people should be shot for the sake of humanity, religious people in particular...

:eek: You prove my point. :p JK. I assume you didn't really mean that. :D

the real question unveiled by this debate is when is it considered we are born?
surely the answer to that question lies in the question itself. thus anything before birth is not yet a baby, in which case abortion shouldnt be considered as a murder.

So what is the unborn fetus? Part of the mother's body?
 

DeletedUser

Steve Farrar didn't give the man's name out of respect for his privacy, but he provides many details on pages 33-37 of Standing Tall (published by Multnomah Books, part of Questar Publishers of Sisters, OR, copyright 1994). Before an audience of about 200 in Mr. Farrar's Texas community, the man said, "Planned Parenthood has nothing to do with abortion. I'm the director and I ought to know." If the man was not the director, he, not Mr. Farrar or me, deserves to be called on that claim. There is no evidence that this incident was made up
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. There's no evidence that the claim was NOT made up either.

, and if you contacted Mr. Farrar, I suppose that he could point you to other witnesses.
Litigants must call their own witnesses. Failure to do so means their evidence must be discounted. Inadmissable.

Regarding my criticism of the study, I was just pointing out that it's necessarily impossible for flawed humans to make a perfect study. I didn't say whether that particular study was more flawed than the others, or that the flaws were serious.
Remarking on the truism of human fallibility does not damage your opponents' argument any more than it damages your own. Redundant contribution.

I haven't read the study, so I don't know.
Well said. Stop there.
 

DeletedUser

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. There's no evidence that the claim was NOT made up either.

Litigants must call their own witnesses. Failure to do so means their evidence must be discounted. Inadmissable.

I called Mr. Farrar as a witness. He said it, and under normal circumstances we give the benefit of the doubt, i.e. we presume that he was relating the truth. To use your words, "Absence of evidence [of truth] is not evidence of absence." If you have no evidence that he was lying, you have no grounds to accuse him of it. At the very least, please either find some evidence of Mr. Farrar's unreliability or read the section in the actual book before suggesting it's false.

Remarking on the truism of human fallibility does not damage your opponents' argument any more than it damages your own. Redundant contribution.

I didn't have an argument there, i.e. I didn't cite a study, so I didn't have any argument to be damaged. :D So no, it didn't win the argument for me. It just countered the suggestion in the news article that the studies on the other side are significantly flawed, but this one isn't.

There are studies supporting each side. So all the studies taken together are not conclusive.
 

DeletedUser

Threeson, unfortunately you're wrong. As you indicated, Mr. Farrar printed it in a book condemning abortion, which brings motive for him to present false evidence (i.e., sell the book). As this alleged director had allegedly spoken to an audience of allegedly 200 people, there is absolutely no reason for Farrar to not disclose this alleged person's alleged name. The claim of "respect for privacy" is absolutely bogus, considering the alleged circumstances.

But let me tell you what really reeks of falsehood here. Planned Parenthood does not have "The" director, it has many directors. Each Planned Parenthood office has a director. It's a medical facility's version of a manager. But here's more to demonstrate how it reeks of falsehood. Farrar claims this person made this statement on, or shortly before, 1994. Well, in 1992, there was a very public case, Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which was about the right to have an abortion, a case addressed by the Supreme Court that was expected to reverse the previous case, Roe vs Wade. Such did not occur and instead they reaffirmed the previous decision.

So, in my firm opinion, based on everything I presented above, Farrar made it up. A little white lie, perhaps, but a lie nonetheless and one the serves no other purpose than to distract.

There are studies supporting each side. So all the studies taken together are not conclusive.
No Threeson, there are no "legitimate" studies on either side, because a legitimate study doesn't have a side. The legitimate studies, having no sides, provides ample evidence that legalized abortion is far better than the alternatives. It does this by presenting verifiable statistics, not by making bogus, unsubstantiated claims in a book.
 

DeletedUser

I'm guessing that his "source" was Abby Johnson. She was director at a Planned Parenthood clinic in the past and has stated that not all Planned Parenthood clinics perform abortions (but they're hoping that will eventually change). She wrote a book about her time at the clinic and her reasons for leaving and becoming pro-life. If so, it was a misquote, but only he would know if it was intentional.
 

DeletedUser

I called Mr. Farrar as a witness. He said it, and under normal circumstances we give the benefit of the doubt, i.e. we presume that he was relating the truth. To use your words, "Absence of evidence [of truth] is not evidence of absence." If you have no evidence that he was lying, you have no grounds to accuse him of it. At the very least, please either find some evidence of Mr. Farrar's unreliability or read the section in the actual book before suggesting it's false.
Hellstrom has dealt with your argument, but I'll stick to forensics.
1.You didn't call Mr Farrar - you asked your opponents to.
2. Defendents can claim the benefit of the doubt, not witnesses - that would be silly.
3. I didn't accuse anyone of lying - read my post properly before making accusations.
4. I neither know nor care anything about your Mr Farrar, but if you want to lean on him it's YOU that has to ensure he's not made of straw, not me, as you will be the one laying face-down in the mud if he collapses.


I didn't have an argument there, i.e. I didn't cite a study, so I didn't have any argument to be damaged.
Now you say you didn't have an argument - okay, stop wasting our time.
There are studies supporting each side. So all the studies taken together are not conclusive.
You're not making any point at all here except that you have no point. Anyway, what studies?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser

I'm guessing that his "source" was Abby Johnson. She was director at a Planned Parenthood clinic in the past and has stated that not all Planned Parenthood clinics perform abortions ...
No, Abby Johnson was with Planned Parenthood from 2001 to 2009, the book was published in 1994.
 

DeletedUser

Threeson, unfortunately you're wrong. As you indicated, Mr. Farrar printed it in a book condemning abortion, which brings motive for him to present false evidence (i.e., sell the book). As this alleged director had allegedly spoken to an audience of allegedly 200 people, there is absolutely no reason for Farrar to not disclose this alleged person's alleged name. The claim of "respect for privacy" is absolutely bogus, considering the alleged circumstances.

But let me tell you what really reeks of falsehood here. Planned Parenthood does not have "The" director, it has many directors. Each Planned Parenthood office has a director. It's a medical facility's version of a manager. But here's more to demonstrate how it reeks of falsehood. Farrar claims this person made this statement on, or shortly before, 1994. Well, in 1992, there was a very public case, Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which was about the right to have an abortion, a case addressed by the Supreme Court that was expected to reverse the previous case, Roe vs Wade. Such did not occur and instead they reaffirmed the previous decision.

So, in my firm opinion, based on everything I presented above, Farrar made it up. A little white lie, perhaps, but a lie nonetheless and one the serves no other purpose than to distract.

It was merely my assumption that it was out of respect for the man's privacy that Farrar didn't give the man's name, and I could be wrong, so perhaps I shouldn't have given a reason. Farrar didn't give the reason. Perhaps he thought it unnecessary, as it was simply an illustration in a book about much more than abortion. (Whatever his reason, for his purposes it was unnecessary. It would not materially add to his book.)

Perhaps the man slipped when he called himself "the" director. Or it is possible that Farrar mistakenly remembered "the" instead of "a." Farrar himself refers to the man as a "representative" of PP, and the term "director" comes from the supposed director's mouth. At any rate, it's an easy mistake to make. If a small typo causes an argument or piece of evidence to be thrown out, then you're on shaky ground yourself.

And one of your main arguments against the event comes tumbling down. I didn't say that it was in 1994 or shortly before, just that the book was copyrighted in 1994. Farrar doesn't say just when the event in question happened, so it could easily have been before Planned Parenthood v. Casey. But you said, "Farrar claims this person made this statement on, or shortly before, 1994." Where did you get your information? Apparently you are making things up. (And your claim is more significant than whether a person was "a" or "the" director of PP. Perhaps you are making up the whole PP v. Casey story? ;) But I know for outside reasons that you are not.)

No Threeson, there are no "legitimate" studies on either side, because a legitimate study doesn't have a side. The legitimate studies, having no sides, provides ample evidence that legalized abortion is far better than the alternatives. It does this by presenting verifiable statistics, not by making bogus, unsubstantiated claims in a book.

You make less sense than I do. :) I didn't say that the studies were intended to support one side or the other, or that they were biased. But if their conclusions do not support one side or the other, then they are irrelevant. If "The legitimate studies...provides ample evidence that legalized abortion is far better than the alternatives," then the legitimate studies' results support the pro-legalized-abortion side, which you say makes them illegitimate. Further, I did not mean that the illustration from the book counters/negates the study mentioned; I was using it as a rather extreme example of inaccuracy in a slightly different, but related, context. (I sometimes use extreme cases to emphasize tendencies to make a point. It's somewhat like taking an argument to its logical conclusion.) Possibly it wasn't a very good example for the situation, but that's a different matter.

Hellstrom has dealt with your argument, but I'll stick to forensics.
1.You didn't call Mr Farrar - you asked your opponents to.
2. Defendents can claim the benefit of the doubt, not witnesses - that would be silly.
3. I didn't accuse anyone of lying - read my post properly before making accusations.
4. I neither know nor care anything about your Mr Farrar, but if you want to lean on him it's YOU that has to ensure he's not made of straw, not me, as you will be the one laying face-down in the mud if he collapses.

1. I used the word "call" in two different senses. Sorry. If you guys want the man's name, I don't have it, although Farrar does. His not writing it doesn't make the story false, just like his not writing the time of the event doesn't mean it didn't happen. "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

2. & 4. I probably shouldn't have said it that way, but Farrar stands until you guys knock him down. As the case stands, he's been proven neither true nor false. (Other than the substitution of the definite article for the indefinite, there is neither internal nor external evidence that the story is false. And the mistake could easily have been accidental on somebody's part. I've noticed a number of typos in this discussion, but that doesn't mean that we are all talking nonsense here.) We could just drop Farrar and say no harm done to either side. Furthermore, we are not putting somebody on trial, so there are no defendants. And if a witness is presumed false without internal or external evidence against his testimony, then the whole idea of debate breaks down.
.
3. You didn't actually say he lied (although Hellstromm said he did). And I didn't actually say you accused him of lying (although Hellstromm pretty much did). So, "read my post properly before making accusations."

Now you say you didn't have an argument - okay, stop wasting our time.

You're not making any point at all here except that you have no point. Anyway, what studies?

I clarified what I meant by not having an argument: I didn't cite a study. Since I didn't cite a study, my claim that a study isn't conclusive didn't hurt me, even though it didn't really add ground to my case. It was only meant to counter the unsubstantiated suggestion in the news article TJ quoted that the "pro-abortion" (for lack of a better term) study was good, while the "pro-life" studies were seriously flawed. As for the word "studies," I mean the one discussed in the article TJ cited, the other ones (no specifics given) briefly mentioned in the article, the "legitimate studies" Hellstromm talks about, and any other scientific or (pseudo-scientific) studies that have been mentioned or may be mentioned. My points are that no scientific study (not even the one mentioned in TJ's article) is perfect and fully reliable, and that the studies taken collectively (even the "legitimate" studies) do not all tend to support one side, as Hellstromm claims they do (while ironically suggesting that that makes them illegitimate).
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser

You make less sense than I do. :) I didn't say that the studies were intended to support one side or the other, or that they were biased. But if their conclusions do not support one side or the other, then they are irrelevant. If "The legitimate studies...provides ample evidence that legalized abortion is far better than the alternatives," then the legitimate studies' results support the pro-legalized-abortion side, which you say makes them illegitimate.
No, legitimate studies do not support any side, and I'm sticking to that position, because it is correct. A particular "side" may present a study, demonstrating through this study that their arguments are valid, but that is not a study supporting one side or the other, it's merely presentation of evidence. Facts and evidence do not take sides, people do. Legitimate studies are about facts and evidence, not about opinions or speculations. Farrar is just one more example of a person with an opinion, willing to fabricate in order to discredit. After all, when there are no facts, no evidence, all you have left are unsubstantiated claims.

I was using it as a rather extreme example of inaccuracy in a slightly different, but related, context. (I sometimes use extreme cases to emphasize tendencies to make a point. It's somewhat like taking an argument to its logical conclusion.) Possibly it wasn't a very good example for the situation, but that's a different matter.
Indeed. Quoting an unsubstantiated claim as gospel is definitely not the means to demonstrate inaccuracy in research, as it merely demonstrates inaccuracy of gossip.

1. I used the word "call" in two different senses. Sorry. If you guys want the man's name, I don't have it, although Farrar does. His not writing it doesn't make the story false, just like his not writing the time of the event doesn't mean it didn't happen. "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."
There is a 1st year journalism rule you should learn --- verify. Do not quote someone, without first verifying the legitimacy of their statements. It is not our responsibility to ensure you give true testimony, it's yours. At the point you quote another, you are accepting responsibility for any slander/libel they may have presented. In a court of law, you would be subject to the same penalties as the person who presented the original libel.

I probably shouldn't have said it that way, but Farrar stands until you guys knock him down. As the case stands, he's been proven neither true nor false.
That's a contradiction right there. You claim he's neither proven true nor false. If such is the case, then Farrar DOES NOT stand. An unsubstantiated statement does not stand. To stand, you must provide support for your claim. In this case, it is your responsibility to provide support to Farrar's claim. And considering the evidence I presented so far, I give strong contest to Farrar's claim. In fact, based on everything I presented, I would say I proved his claim to be sufficiently questionable.

You didn't actually say he lied (although Hellstromm said he did). And I didn't actually say you accused him of lying (although Hellstromm pretty much did). So, "read my post properly before making accusations.
Yep, I'm saying he lied. There are too many flaws in his story.

Furthermore, we are not putting somebody on trial, so there are no defendants. And if a witness is presumed false without internal or external evidence against his testimony, then the whole idea of debate breaks down.
Right, so you're posing Farrar as a witness. A witness who claims an unnamed person who was allegedly "the" Director of Planned Parenthood, made a false statement despite all the publicly available evidence to the contrary, in front of 200 witnesses at an undisclosed location.

Dude, that's not a witness, that's not even hearsay. That's just outright fabrication. Give it up and let's move on to some other straw-man argument you might want to present, because this one is seriously not even stuffed sufficiently to prop on a righteous pole.

it was in 1994 or shortly before, just that the book was copyrighted in 1994. Farrar doesn't say just when the event in question happened, so it could easily have been before Planned Parenthood v. Casey. But you said, "Farrar claims this person made this statement on, or shortly before, 1994." Where did you get your information? Apparently you are making things up. (And your claim is more significant than whether a person was "a" or "the" director of PP. Perhaps you are making up the whole PP v. Casey story? ;) But I know for outside reasons that you are not.)
Now you're just dancing on the straw-man argument. Fine, let's push the issue a little:

Planned Parenthood of Central Missouri v. Danforth (1976)
Planned Parenthood Association of Kansas City v. Ashcroft (1983)

And quite a few cases before and since. Let's also not forget, Roe vs Wade was about the State of Texas, so the axe first went down on Texas soil.

Threeson, let's stop with this straw-man. It is completely irrelevant to this discussion. I only bothered to participate in contesting your straw-man because you're giving this Farrar guy an almost reverent place next to your ear, despite him failing to provide any evidence in support of his claim. It just kinda bothers me that you're willing to accept blatant hearsay whilst completely dismissing legitimate research studies. This sort of distorted examination of evidence undermines your credibility as a whole and that's what I'm really attempting to point out here.

I didn't cite a study. Since I didn't cite a study, my claim that a study isn't conclusive didn't hurt me, even though it didn't really add ground to my case. It was only meant to counter the unsubstantiated suggestion in the news article TJ quoted that the "pro-abortion" (for lack of a better term) study was good, while the "pro-life" studies were seriously flawed.
And now to the meat of the issue. You posed an opinion to discredit research studies that were cited in an article. When we requested that you provide evidence in support of your opinion, you ran off on a tangent and avoided altogether providing any evidence, instead obfuscating the issue with this completely contrived argument that is unrelated to the topic of this thread.

At least you're honest about having provided absolutely nothing to this discussion.
 
Top